2001 3.6 engine build

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by sgt brad

prodriver,

it seems like a pretty comprehensive build-up. one of the things that i like about jake's builds is that they address all of the "modes of failure." also having 300+hp ain't bad either.

while i don't need a motor right now, it's always good to have resources. buying a motormeister just doesn't cut it. i may give you a call if/when the time comes.

i think i read somewhere else that you've done 2 of the m96 raby builds. did you ever get the other motor on the dyno to see what kind of power it makes? while i'm leary of instant-g's work, it's hard to argue with his logic that the boxster motor makes significantly less hp/lt than the 996. something is choking it down. i am hoping to unlock the missing hp whenever the rebuild time comes. i am curious if your experience shows that the 3.6 makes 300+ as jake advertises.

brad

Thanks Brad, I am in the middle of my 3rd M96 rebuild now. I haven't done any dyno testing but the power difference is obvious while driving. I'm not familiar with instant-g's work but since the Boxster S got Vario-Cam + in 2003 most of the power increases have ben made with exhaust, intake & DME tweeks. With the exception of displacement size Boxster S & 996 engines are nearly identical, it's the external components that allow the 996's higher output.

[sgt brad]

just got back in town from a business trip. thanks for the reply. what ancillary components do you think benefit the box the most. it appears to have at least a decent tubular header from the factory. the piping seems awfully small to me, but is the intake really that restrictive? did porsche honestly hamstring the box with that minimal of an intake system? i'm just new to all of this and seeing the 996 3.4 numbers vs. the box s 3.2 numbers makes thing seem screwy. i'm sure this has been beat to death on this forum, but i haven't seen anything on it when i search. that raby is only getting 300hp after the 3.6 build seems low to me (unless those are chassis dyno numbers).

[onaFLYer]

Originally Posted by sgt brad

just got back in town from a business trip. thanks for the reply. what ancillary components do you think benefit the box the most. it appears to have at least a decent tubular header from the factory. the piping seems awfully small to me, but is the intake really that restrictive? did porsche honestly hamstring the box with that minimal of an intake system? i'm just new to all of this and seeing the 996 3.4 numbers vs. the box s 3.2 numbers makes thing seem screwy. i'm sure this has been beat to death on this forum, but i haven't seen anything on it when i search. that raby is only getting 300hp after the 3.6 build seems low to me (unless those are chassis dyno numbers).

sgt, you should read this
http://986forum.com/forums/general-discussions/31693-maf-throttle-body-diameter.html

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by sgt brad

just got back in town from a business trip. thanks for the reply. what ancillary components do you think benefit the box the most. it appears to have at least a decent tubular header from the factory. the piping seems awfully small to me, but is the intake really that restrictive? did porsche honestly hamstring the box with that minimal of an intake system? i'm just new to all of this and seeing the 996 3.4 numbers vs. the box s 3.2 numbers makes thing seem screwy. i'm sure this has been beat to death on this forum, but i haven't seen anything on it when i search. that raby is only getting 300hp after the 3.6 build seems low to me (unless those are chassis dyno numbers).

The Boxster components are more restrictive than the 996 & 997 parts as the same year engines are basically identical except for the bore size & If the only variable is bore size 2 different engines should have simular peak horsepower just at different rpm. If you look at Flat6 web page for stage1 3.6 engines it shows 25hp more for the same engine installed in a 996. (chassis dyno numbers)

[jaykay]

As some experienced people have mentioned, you have to consider cam timing on one versus the other. Currently, I don't understand how this could be significantly differentiated on the earlier vario cam cars as intake cam phasing in one position or another and no variable valve lift either

Perhaps the vario ram actuator moves diffferently or more on the 996 3.4

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by jaykay

As some experienced people have mentioned, you have to consider cam timing on one versus the other. Currently, I don't understand how this could be significantly differentiated on the earlier vario cam cars as intake cam phasing in one position or another and no variable valve lift either

Perhaps the vario ram actuator moves diffferently or more on the 996 3.4

The cams are identical & for street driving I wouldn't want to alter the timing.

[Brad Roberts]

I have built this same engine, and I have also made 295hp with a 3.2 (and passes CA smog without issue) The 3.6 conversion doesn't impress me. For 10k a CaymanS engine will make 340hp.

We even went out of our way and did a CaymanS intake on the 3.4 heads... and large tube exhaust... The bottle neck is the heads/cams..


B

[sgt brad]

to run the cayman s motor you have to have the variocam plus dme though right? i've been down the road of having to rework the engine mgt system to make it work and don't want to do that again. it seems to me that the bigger disp on the stock m96 would work well for me. i just find it hard to believe that it takes 20k+ to make 300 or so hp. factor in a full exhaust and ipd/pedro/etc intake and add another 5k to that number. 25k for 330hp? really? i guess it's really closer to 375 at the crank and that is some solace. but, still.......

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by Brad Roberts

I have built this same engine, and I have also made 295hp with a 3.2 (and passes CA smog without issue) The 3.6 conversion doesn't impress me. For 10k a CaymanS engine will make 340hp.

We even went out of our way and did a CaymanS intake on the 3.4 heads... and large tube exhaust... The bottle neck is the heads/cams..


B

Engine design is always compromising one end of the rpm range or the other.

[Jake Raby]

The 3.6 big bore does impress me... Even with stock camshaft profiles (with altered lobe separation and open/ closing events)it is possible to build a much more usable RPM range with huge increases in torque and throttle response all while addressing the internal deficiencies of the OE engine.
Recently a client drove his Boxster to us (from Oregon to Ga) for an elective 3.2> 3.6 big bore enhancement.
On the way here he averaged 23 MPg, on the way home he averaged 30mpg. Our engine combination is that much more efficient even when his car made 42HP more at the rear wheels in the "after" evaluation than it did "before".
The best part is the only OE Porsche parts that were used we're chain rails and a gasket set.

The only guy that benefits from my engine is the one who will keep his car forever~

That said, the reasons why the same 3.6 big bore engine always makes more power in the 996 than in a Boxster are numerous and we thoroughly understand all of those elements. We can now make 300rwhp from our 3.2> 3.6 with stock exhaust, stock ecu and a stock intake along with all other stock externals. While everyone was busy bolting on performance I optimized the internals of these engines and continue to.

[BYprodriver]

[mikefocke]

But the pros do their homework on the dyno and aren't doing yours as their first. They know the numbers and they drive the results and make sure they work in the real world. It does you no good to have impressive dyno results and have a pig to drive to the supermarket.